Comments

I still feel the need to address this section and why it is piss-poor writing, and include an anecdote to illustrate why:

I’ve spoken with several former employees of ArenaNet and they’ve all told me the same thing: MO is not the hero Guild Wars fans make him out to be. Quite often, it’s the opposite: he’s a founder and the company president, but there’s a reason he’s the only founder left at the company. There’s a reason many of the people who were responsible for the sky-high dreams of Guild Wars 2 left for other studios. There’s a reason that MO’s the only founder left.

There once was a podcast between two comedians, Saddox and Rick and they had a mutual friend Coconuts who guest spotted on occasion. It eventually ended, and the two started their own shows. Coconuts wanted to be remain friends with both, and wanted to appear on both their shows.

Saddox didn't like that and ended their friendship.

When asked about this, Saddox told fans, "Coconuts and I aren't friends anymore. He did something really gross to me and my girlfriend and if I were to actually say what it was, it would ruin his professional and personal career."

This was called out by the fans as "lying and implying."

Because without any concrete accusation and just the implication, the idea is left to fester in people's minds as to what horrible things Coconuts did. What gross thing could Coconuts have done to a woman?

And that's what is happening here.

The article is designed to leave an implication festering in the imaginations of people who may be fence-sitting that O'Brien is something sinister, that hurts game devs, but leaving it up to people to imagine what that is.

I'm started to see a 2 fold argument against her firing which I cant agree with either one honestly. One is MO is a jerk so HE should be fired and then she pulled a sexism card so you cant fire her for defending herself against sexism. Except there was no sexism and the personality of the person firing has no matter in this case.

What we really need is accountability. JP didn't have any and automatically fell back on something that is highly talked about right now. Sex! For the record the way she responded I would have agreed with the firing whether she was male or female, black or white.

umm..there seems to be a lot of "reasons" why letting her go was unfair, somewhat implies...he isn't the type of person you can trust to do so for good reasons due to his..character?.

I'm going to assuming you can't go into details, but then why write an article about it doing the same thing...you get what i mean. Its kinda hypercritical, maybe .. casually rude?.

I dont see the point in this, the tweets and how she conducts herself speaks for itself, but i will say its good for views though.

if you want to bury it then stop talking about it....take care.

My point is that people are villain-izing Price while extolling the virtues of MO, when it's quite possible they both suck and we don't know much more than we're presented on Reddit and Twitter.

that's because she is a villain. its her actions and statements that caused consequences for her. MO is basically irrelevant and is only applauded because a correct decision he made in this one instance. even if he was literal hitler it wouldn't excuse or exonerate her from the choices she freely made. the attacks against MO IN THIS CASE are just to deflect and spite.

LOL! No problem, it got rather heavy handed in here today so I felt it was needed as well. This whole kerfuffle is a pretty good life lesson. All this angst and bullshit caused by one person with an inability to treat other people with any measure of civility or respect. ... Bill Murphy .. er no wait ... Jessica Raging Narcissist Price. I think from now on I'll refer to her as Fisher Price as her personality seems appropriate only for that of a small child.

EDIT: forgot to complete my thought. I'm going to use this incident to remind myself why its important to take a moment before just lighting into someone who pissed me off. Their intentions might not be how I initially read them, and a moment of calm kindness can save you from days of angst and regret. ... Not to mention unemployment and public ridicule.

Post edited by MisterZebub on July 2018

"People worry about kids playing with guns, or watching violent videos...That some sort of culture of violence will take them over.Nobody worries about kids listening to thousands - literally, thousands of songsAbout heartbreak, rejection...pain, misery and loss. Did I listen to pop musicBecause I was miserable... or was I miserable because I listened to pop music?"

You may not be full of shit for the facts outside of the initial story, but you are absolutely full of shit for your timing of bringing it up.

It's like bringing up a judges bias and trying to get a case thrown out on a person caught on tape committing the crime. Yes, judge will get removed and past cases reviewed but this defendant right here;

Nice try though.

Nope. I think it's about not stopping at the first two "bad guys" that got caught.

You may not be full of shit for the facts outside of the initial story, but you are absolutely full of shit for your timing of bringing it up.

It's like bringing up a judges bias and trying to get a case thrown out on a person caught on tape committing the crime. Yes, judge will get removed and past cases reviewed but this defendant right here;

Nice try though.

Nope. I think it's about not stopping at the first two "bad guys" that got caught.

Again, that was poorly communicated, considering the context and content of the article itself. I'm not implying @BillMurphy is being dishonest, because I've never seen him be dishonest with us before (besides intentionally getting the definition of MMORPG wrong! ), but the end result just didn't hit the mark he was trying to hit well.

He himself has stated that he didn't make the point as clearly as he would've liked.

EDIT- for additional retrospective, I would like to know whether ANet had a clear-cut social media policy or discussion with their employees prior to the event. Thinking back, the USAF literally had to gather new Airman into an auditorium in the spring to tell them to wear sunscreen on the beach and not play in waters with sharks, jellyfish, or other dangerous animals. Yea, it's come to that these days, so ANet would be amiss to not have covered that specifically with employees as a company. Even a quick "Don't post anything on public accounts that might reflect poorly on the company. If you like, you can keep your accounts private and separate from work if you feel the need to post controversial content that might otherwise harm the ANet brand." would suffice.

This shouldn't even be controversial. The fastest way to get fired at any company is to disrespect customers. That is what JP did. That is why she was fired. End of story.

I don't think it's that simple in this case. And then why was Fries fired? He was, for all I can surmise, loved by both fans and AN employees. Just to CYA and not get a law-suit for discrimination perhaps? The whole thing stinks, and has potential implications for devs at all companies moving forward.

Someone made a good point in one of the videos addressing this situation. In the case of Peter Fries, if they didn't fire him, she would point to him not being fired as gender discrimination. Notice how she ignores him being fired because it doesn't fit her narrative. Imagine what she'd be saying if he was still employed by them after she was fired.

You may not be full of shit for the facts outside of the initial story, but you are absolutely full of shit for your timing of bringing it up.

It's like bringing up a judges bias and trying to get a case thrown out on a person caught on tape committing the crime. Yes, judge will get removed and past cases reviewed but this defendant right here;

Nice try though.

Nope. I think it's about not stopping at the first two "bad guys" that got caught.

Hmmm. I wonder if Bill's point would have gone over better if he stated it as Price is just the tip of the iceberg?

"People worry about kids playing with guns, or watching violent videos...That some sort of culture of violence will take them over.Nobody worries about kids listening to thousands - literally, thousands of songsAbout heartbreak, rejection...pain, misery and loss. Did I listen to pop musicBecause I was miserable... or was I miserable because I listened to pop music?"

A few months back I had a very positive twitter interaction with Jessica. I had tweeted out my experience with the first episode of season 4 and she replied about her experience making it. It's certainly not my place to speak on behalf of anyone involved in what went down over the past few days and I agree with most that Deroir and MmoInks didn't deserve the response they received from her and I'm glad to see that this fact is being pointed out in some articles. I'm disappointed that some news outlets have lumped them in with the more toxic spectrum of the gaming community. As far as the firings, I don't know what to think - It felt hasty, but it wasn't shocking - except Peter's. That did surprise me. I don't know what lessons should be learned from this, but I hope somebody learned something constructive.

You may not be full of shit for the facts outside of the initial story, but you are absolutely full of shit for your timing of bringing it up.

It's like bringing up a judges bias and trying to get a case thrown out on a person caught on tape committing the crime. Yes, judge will get removed and past cases reviewed but this defendant right here;

Nice try though.

Nope. I think it's about not stopping at the first two "bad guys" that got caught.

Hmmm. I wonder if Bill's point would have gone over better if he stated it as Price is just the tip of the iceberg?

I think it might've come off better as: she was clearly in the wrong for responding to Deroir as she did, but here's why other media outlets have been taking what seems like a counter-intuitive stance on the issue. Bill mentioned he was merely trying to look at it from all sides, but I feel the disconnect might be that we've already heard a lot of one specific side without a lot of insider-specific context on why that side may enjoy the focus it has, as Bill implied.

Of course, a disclaimer: hindsight is 20/20 and I'm no professional journalist, so what do I really even know (don't hurt me, Bill!)?

You may not be full of shit for the facts outside of the initial story, but you are absolutely full of shit for your timing of bringing it up.

It's like bringing up a judges bias and trying to get a case thrown out on a person caught on tape committing the crime. Yes, judge will get removed and past cases reviewed but this defendant right here;

Nice try though.

Nope. I think it's about not stopping at the first two "bad guys" that got caught.

Again, that was poorly communicated, considering the context and content of the article itself. I'm not implying @BillMurphy is being dishonest, because I've never seen him be dishonest with us before (besides intentionally getting the definition of MMORPG wrong! ), but the end result just didn't hit the mark he was trying to hit well.

He himself has stated that he didn't make the point as clearly as he would've liked.

EDIT- for additional retrospective, I would like to know whether ANet had a clear-cut social media policy or discussion with their employees prior to the event. Thinking back, the USAF literally had to gather new Airman into an auditorium in the spring to tell them to wear sunscreen on the beach and not play in waters with sharks, jellyfish, or other dangerous animals. Yea, it's come to that these days, so ANet would be amiss to not have covered that specifically with employees as a company. Even a quick "Don't post anything on public accounts that might reflect poorly on the company. If you like, you can keep your accounts private and separate from work if you feel the need to post controversial content that might otherwise harm the ANet brand." would suffice.

Yeah, he probably could have organized it better in hindsight. I can relate to that. I've done that, constructed an argument I realized could have been phrased or presented better. I think he's done a good job at clarifying that through dialog though, which is what I was responding to. By that point in the thread it is a lot clearer where Bill is at and what his intentions are.

That's the great thing about this being a discussion forum. We're not limited to a snapshot of Bill's mind when he originally wrote the article. I understand a lot better his concerns and perspective. I agree with some and I'm unsure about some others. The event isn't complex, but the environment and gaming culture (including development) surrounding and fostering this rather is.

You may not be full of shit for the facts outside of the initial story, but you are absolutely full of shit for your timing of bringing it up.

It's like bringing up a judges bias and trying to get a case thrown out on a person caught on tape committing the crime. Yes, judge will get removed and past cases reviewed but this defendant right here;

Nice try though.

Nope. I think it's about not stopping at the first two "bad guys" that got caught.

Again, that was poorly communicated, considering the context and content of the article itself. I'm not implying @BillMurphy is being dishonest, because I've never seen him be dishonest with us before (besides intentionally getting the definition of MMORPG wrong! ), but the end result just didn't hit the mark he was trying to hit well.

He himself has stated that he didn't make the point as clearly as he would've liked.

EDIT- for additional retrospective, I would like to know whether ANet had a clear-cut social media policy or discussion with their employees prior to the event. Thinking back, the USAF literally had to gather new Airman into an auditorium in the spring to tell them to wear sunscreen on the beach and not play in waters with sharks, jellyfish, or other dangerous animals. Yea, it's come to that these days, so ANet would be amiss to not have covered that specifically with employees as a company. Even a quick "Don't post anything on public accounts that might reflect poorly on the company. If you like, you can keep your accounts private and separate from work if you feel the need to post controversial content that might otherwise harm the ANet brand." would suffice.

Yeah, he probably could have organized it better in hindsight. I can relate to that. I've done that, constructed an argument I realized could have been phrased or presented better. I think he's done a good job at clarifying that through dialog though, which is what I was responding to. By that point in the thread it is a lot clearer where Bill is at and what his intentions are.

That's the great thing about this being a discussion forum. We're not limited to a snapshot of Bill's mind when he originally wrote the article. I understand a lot better his concerns and perspective. I agree with some and I'm unsure about some others. The event isn't complex, but the environment and gaming culture (including development) surrounding and fostering this rather is.

Absolutely. That's one of the reasons I enjoy coming here: Bill, you, and the rest of the folks who contribute will generally follow up to clarify ot expound in the forums attached to the piece. I like that Bill has shown a willingness to engage us further even when we all seemed to be against him. Debate, even heated debate, can be a greatly insightful thing.

I've come to "verbal blows" with almost everyone on this forum at some point or another, but with a few rare exceptions with some especially indignant folks, we're all pretty good at keeping the sparring gloves and headgear on, so to speak. I have no problem with seeing that here, and I'm glad it's not so heavily moderated as to render the place an echo chamber of "No, you're right, I just shouldn't have posted at all because I don't agree with you! I really killed the happy-go-lucky atmosphere, my fault. I'll just go fuck myself, it's cool, really! I'm sorry!"

You may not be full of shit for the facts outside of the initial story, but you are absolutely full of shit for your timing of bringing it up.

It's like bringing up a judges bias and trying to get a case thrown out on a person caught on tape committing the crime. Yes, judge will get removed and past cases reviewed but this defendant right here;

Nice try though.

Nope. I think it's about not stopping at the first two "bad guys" that got caught.

Again, that was poorly communicated, considering the context and content of the article itself. I'm not implying @BillMurphy is being dishonest, because I've never seen him be dishonest with us before (besides intentionally getting the definition of MMORPG wrong! ), but the end result just didn't hit the mark he was trying to hit well.

He himself has stated that he didn't make the point as clearly as he would've liked.

EDIT- for additional retrospective, I would like to know whether ANet had a clear-cut social media policy or discussion with their employees prior to the event. Thinking back, the USAF literally had to gather new Airman into an auditorium in the spring to tell them to wear sunscreen on the beach and not play in waters with sharks, jellyfish, or other dangerous animals. Yea, it's come to that these days, so ANet would be amiss to not have covered that specifically with employees as a company. Even a quick "Don't post anything on public accounts that might reflect poorly on the company. If you like, you can keep your accounts private and separate from work if you feel the need to post controversial content that might otherwise harm the ANet brand." would suffice.

Yeah, he probably could have organized it better in hindsight. I can relate to that. I've done that, constructed an argument I realized could have been phrased or presented better. I think he's done a good job at clarifying that through dialog though, which is what I was responding to. By that point in the thread it is a lot clearer where Bill is at and what his intentions are.

That's the great thing about this being a discussion forum. We're not limited to a snapshot of Bill's mind when he originally wrote the article. I understand a lot better his concerns and perspective. I agree with some and I'm unsure about some others. The event isn't complex, but the environment and gaming culture (including development) surrounding and fostering this rather is.

Absolutely. That's one of the reasons I enjoy coming here: Bill, you, and the rest of the folks who contribute will generally follow up to clarify ot expound in the forums attached to the piece. I like that Bill has shown a willingness to engage us further even when we all seemed to be against him. Debate, even heated debate, can be a greatly insightful thing.

I've come to "verbal blows" with almost everyone on this forum at some point or another, but with a few rare exceptions with some especially indignant folks, we're all pretty good at keeping the sparring gloves and headgear on, so to speak. I have no problem with seeing that here, and I'm glad it's not so heavily moderated as to render the place an echo chamber of "No, you're right, I just shouldn't have posted at all because I don't agree with you! I really killed the happy-go-lucky atmosphere, my fault. I'll just go fuck myself, it's cool, really! I'm sorry!"

That's why I keep coming back. There's a small core of users here that I respect and almost enjoy disagreeing with from time to time. You might say that life is only interesting because people can disagree.

"...the entire gaming world is talking about what a horrible thing it is for a company’s president to have fired an employee over Twitter conversations"

Who exactly is talking about that specifically? It seems like only media outlets, price, and extreme feminists are taking that stance. At least 90% of the actual gaming community seems to have sided with ArenaNet or at least against Price. Read any comments section in these articles (not Polygon). Even more liberal sites like Kotaku and MOP barely have anyone defending Price.

You may not be full of shit for the facts outside of the initial story, but you are absolutely full of shit for your timing of bringing it up.

It's like bringing up a judges bias and trying to get a case thrown out on a person caught on tape committing the crime. Yes, judge will get removed and past cases reviewed but this defendant right here;

Nice try though.

Nope. I think it's about not stopping at the first two "bad guys" that got caught.

Again, that was poorly communicated, considering the context and content of the article itself. I'm not implying @BillMurphy is being dishonest, because I've never seen him be dishonest with us before (besides intentionally getting the definition of MMORPG wrong! ), but the end result just didn't hit the mark he was trying to hit well.

He himself has stated that he didn't make the point as clearly as he would've liked.

EDIT- for additional retrospective, I would like to know whether ANet had a clear-cut social media policy or discussion with their employees prior to the event. Thinking back, the USAF literally had to gather new Airman into an auditorium in the spring to tell them to wear sunscreen on the beach and not play in waters with sharks, jellyfish, or other dangerous animals. Yea, it's come to that these days, so ANet would be amiss to not have covered that specifically with employees as a company. Even a quick "Don't post anything on public accounts that might reflect poorly on the company. If you like, you can keep your accounts private and separate from work if you feel the need to post controversial content that might otherwise harm the ANet brand." would suffice.

Yeah, he probably could have organized it better in hindsight. I can relate to that. I've done that, constructed an argument I realized could have been phrased or presented better. I think he's done a good job at clarifying that through dialog though, which is what I was responding to. By that point in the thread it is a lot clearer where Bill is at and what his intentions are.

That's the great thing about this being a discussion forum. We're not limited to a snapshot of Bill's mind when he originally wrote the article. I understand a lot better his concerns and perspective. I agree with some and I'm unsure about some others. The event isn't complex, but the environment and gaming culture (including development) surrounding and fostering this rather is.

Absolutely. That's one of the reasons I enjoy coming here: Bill, you, and the rest of the folks who contribute will generally follow up to clarify ot expound in the forums attached to the piece. I like that Bill has shown a willingness to engage us further even when we all seemed to be against him. Debate, even heated debate, can be a greatly insightful thing.

I've come to "verbal blows" with almost everyone on this forum at some point or another, but with a few rare exceptions with some especially indignant folks, we're all pretty good at keeping the sparring gloves and headgear on, so to speak. I have no problem with seeing that here, and I'm glad it's not so heavily moderated as to render the place an echo chamber of "No, you're right, I just shouldn't have posted at all because I don't agree with you! I really killed the happy-go-lucky atmosphere, my fault. I'll just go fuck myself, it's cool, really! I'm sorry!"

That's why I keep coming back. There's a small core of users here that I respect and almost enjoy disagreeing with from time to time. You might say that life is only interesting because people can disagree.

I wasn't going to post a response at first, but as I thought through it I realized I just wanted to say "snapshot of BIll's mind" really bad. See, I had to edit this because I thought of a better way to say it after I posted. My reality is a work in process apparently.

I also find it ironic that you warn & ban people for speaking politics when you clearly start threads and publish articles that are based on just that ! Just off the top of my head here is a few of your more recent

I'm going to take umbrage at this comment: Neither Bill nor I are the forum moderators, nor do we hand out bans or warnings. That comes from an independent group of volunteers under the direction of MikeB. Trust me when I tell you that they are much more impartial than I would be in their shoes.

If you got a warning, rather than posting snarkily about it here, take it up with @MikeB who is in charge of this whole shootin' match on the forums.

I don't think they were asking about how to get "unbanned" or anything of that nature. What the statement is saying is why warn someone about their personal politics when you are clearly displaying your own? Why warn someone to stay away from discussing politics at all when the article YOU present is centered around politics? Now I know you may get snippy with me & I'm not trying to be rude but these are legitimate questions & statements

Just want to clarify for future reference: editorial and community are not the same dept. Bill runs editorial and I run community. If we publish an editorial (or news piece) that is political in nature, we tend to lock the comments. I don't decide what goes up in terms of news/articles, my team and I just decide the fate of the comment threads attached to them.

That said, I don't necessarily view the subject matter of this piece as inherently political, but the potential for it to become a political discussion wasn't lost on me. However, since the discussion was for the most part pretty reasonable, I decided to see if that would hold.

I also find it ironic that you warn & ban people for speaking politics when you clearly start threads and publish articles that are based on just that ! Just off the top of my head here is a few of your more recent

I'm going to take umbrage at this comment: Neither Bill nor I are the forum moderators, nor do we hand out bans or warnings. That comes from an independent group of volunteers under the direction of MikeB. Trust me when I tell you that they are much more impartial than I would be in their shoes.

If you got a warning, rather than posting snarkily about it here, take it up with @MikeB who is in charge of this whole shootin' match on the forums.

I don't think they were asking about how to get "unbanned" or anything of that nature. What the statement is saying is why warn someone about their personal politics when you are clearly displaying your own? Why warn someone to stay away from discussing politics at all when the article YOU present is centered around politics? Now I know you may get snippy with me & I'm not trying to be rude but these are legitimate questions & statements

Just want to clarify for future reference: editorial and community are not the same dept. Bill runs editorial and I run community. If we publish an editorial (or news piece) that is political in nature, we tend to lock the comments. I don't decide what goes up in terms of news/articles, my team and I just decide the fate of the comment threads attached to them.

That said, I don't necessarily view the subject matter of this piece as inherently political, but the potential for it to become a political discussion wasn't lost on me. However, since the discussion was for the most part pretty reasonable, I decided to see if that would hold.

I also find it ironic that you warn & ban people for speaking politics when you clearly start threads and publish articles that are based on just that ! Just off the top of my head here is a few of your more recent

I'm going to take umbrage at this comment: Neither Bill nor I are the forum moderators, nor do we hand out bans or warnings. That comes from an independent group of volunteers under the direction of MikeB. Trust me when I tell you that they are much more impartial than I would be in their shoes.

If you got a warning, rather than posting snarkily about it here, take it up with @MikeB who is in charge of this whole shootin' match on the forums.

I don't think they were asking about how to get "unbanned" or anything of that nature. What the statement is saying is why warn someone about their personal politics when you are clearly displaying your own? Why warn someone to stay away from discussing politics at all when the article YOU present is centered around politics? Now I know you may get snippy with me & I'm not trying to be rude but these are legitimate questions & statements

Just want to clarify for future reference: editorial and community are not the same dept. Bill runs editorial and I run community. If we publish an editorial (or news piece) that is political in nature, we tend to lock the comments. I don't decide what goes up in terms of news/articles, my team and I just decide the fate of the comment threads attached to them.

That said, I don't necessarily view the subject matter of this piece as inherently political, but the potential for it to become a political discussion wasn't lost on me. However, since the discussion was for the most part pretty reasonable, I decided to see if that would hold.

Very well said. Things can very easily be lost in translation from the person creating the thread & from the people commenting on it & tensions can run high. People who have the same beliefs can even have heated arguments from time to time over sometimes trivial matters, but when we look back at some of the things we say during these times we understand how far we went. This is clearly a heated topic on every site talking about it.

We all need to just make sure that we know our opinion isn't the only opinion & I very much include myself in these statements. Actually I'm typing this more for a message to myself than others. Again, great message MikeB

I also find it ironic that you warn & ban people for speaking politics when you clearly start threads and publish articles that are based on just that ! Just off the top of my head here is a few of your more recent

I'm going to take umbrage at this comment: Neither Bill nor I are the forum moderators, nor do we hand out bans or warnings. That comes from an independent group of volunteers under the direction of MikeB. Trust me when I tell you that they are much more impartial than I would be in their shoes.

If you got a warning, rather than posting snarkily about it here, take it up with @MikeB who is in charge of this whole shootin' match on the forums.

I don't think they were asking about how to get "unbanned" or anything of that nature. What the statement is saying is why warn someone about their personal politics when you are clearly displaying your own? Why warn someone to stay away from discussing politics at all when the article YOU present is centered around politics? Now I know you may get snippy with me & I'm not trying to be rude but these are legitimate questions & statements

Just want to clarify for future reference: editorial and community are not the same dept. Bill runs editorial and I run community. If we publish an editorial (or news piece) that is political in nature, we tend to lock the comments. I don't decide what goes up in terms of news/articles, my team and I just decide the fate of the comment threads attached to them.

That said, I don't necessarily view the subject matter of this piece as inherently political, but the potential for it to become a political discussion wasn't lost on me. However, since the discussion was for the most part pretty reasonable, I decided to see if that would hold.

Thanks for clearing that up Bill.

"People worry about kids playing with guns, or watching violent videos...That some sort of culture of violence will take them over.Nobody worries about kids listening to thousands - literally, thousands of songsAbout heartbreak, rejection...pain, misery and loss. Did I listen to pop musicBecause I was miserable... or was I miserable because I listened to pop music?"

Below is a great vid from Liana K a youtube content creator, speaking about what they feel happened. It is a great neutral stance on the situation & I have to say I agree with pretty much 100% of what she says. It is a 34min vid but was a good watch. The reason I post it here because some of it is what Bill was trying to say & some of it is what the replies were trying to say. Or at least I think. Enjoy